6 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

Remember that this game was designed originally for 300 pts. Gotta wonder what breaks now if the game is slightly larger than intended.

It's vsds.

I don’t know, Was Armada designed originally for 300, or was it intended at 400 with a 300 stopgap at release?

Quick poll here: has anyone tried messing with BT Avenger in this format? Or a super Defiance?

EWS makes for a tough nut to crack unless facing a similar big-gunned battleship

Hey @ShoutingMan and @NightAngel47 ! Glad to hear you're enjoying the format. I find because of the shortened time, its great for getting games with people who would normally never even entertain the possibility, like the SO or the wife.

Yeah, my experience has been similar in that a few different roles would have changed the outcome, but also that there were very close games.

Let it be known that I'm not blind or un-willing to talk about balance issues in this format: Honestly, I think large ships + squads is an exceptionally far too difficult prospect for most fleets to crack. Ex. ISD Motti SFO + 3 fire sprays. Generally, they don't lose the large ship and can save points. I think the 400 point game itself currently has a nascent large-base issue, with a lack of value to small ships and medium ships, as evidenced by the discussions about the Cymoon, and the lack of VSDs. In taskforce, I'm strongly considering a half-point rule for larges (especially due to SAD/Bail/Pryce/Raddus/MC75/Cymoons), but it remains not enough testing to verify if this is helpful. Generally though, when I play bomber fleets in taskforce (gasp! Blail knows how to play squads???), I find that the hard counter, 1 large + squads is exceptionally one-sided no matter how well the bomber fleet plays. (Its still possible to be an idiot and play the ISd+squads list poorly)

Also there is a question about if the flotilla cap should be in taskforce. Should it be a 2flot cap? or halve this rule also, and be a 1flot cap? Imo, two flotillas in this format are not nearly as game breaking because of the reduced squadrons and significant loss of firepower.

1 hour ago, DUR said:

Quick poll here: has anyone tried messing with BT Avenger in this format? Or a super Defiance?

EWS makes for a tough nut to crack unless facing a similar big-gunned battleship

Yes. Large ships currently seem to dominate more than they used to.

Why, I'm not sure.

Apart from that, most people tend to say after trying this format that it basically plays exactly like normal Armada. Just faster. And that to me is important. That's the main reason for not changing anything about the game except "keeping the larger half". No special rules or initiative errata.

5 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Yes. Large ships currently seem to dominate more than they used to.

Why, I'm not sure.

Certainly more of them have been coming out over time. Last wave gave more options and toys for big ship players to start using thier heavy batteries. Ews allows them to realistically survive thier biggest counter (yavaris swarm). It's rock paper scissors now between ews and ecm vs fighters or huge batteries. That's just between big ships though- small ships just Dodge them and mediums get diced in the crossfire.

On 5/22/2018 at 3:44 PM, DUR said:

Quick poll here: has anyone tried messing with BT Avenger in this format? Or a super Defiance?

EWS makes for a tough nut to crack unless facing a similar big-gunned battleship

Yes. Go back a page for my last two “reports”. My opponent routinely flies iterations on a Madine MC75. I’ve countered with a Motti BT Devastator, and also a Jerry Cymoon Relentless.

The variant, for me, makes MSU so appealing and so difficult. It’s kinda maddening.

On 5/22/2018 at 5:45 PM, Blail Blerg said:

Apart from that, most people tend to say after trying this format that it basically plays exactly like normal Armada. Just faster. And that to me is important. That's the main reason for not changing anything about the game except "keeping the larger half". No special rules or initiative errata.

I also recommend playing it with the meta guidelines of “call out MO before it’s too late” and “when in doubt, err on the attacker’s side”. It makes for a more exciting game, helps you not miss steps and so play better, and maybe fosters the positive play we all want.

Task force better. 600-750 points. Attention spans.

On 5/17/2018 at 5:20 PM, Drasnighta said:

I don’t know, Was Armada designed originally for 300, or was it intended at 400 with a 300 stopgap at release?

We'll, it was released at 300, and nowhere in the rulebook does it say 400 does it? Otherwise why wasn't that in the core set?

It also explains why some things aren't working at 400 points that used to work before. Why do vsds go crunch now, and often, when they were harder to kill in wave 1? I figured more points means more ships/fighters/upgrades to increase offensive power without average increases to ship defense.

Vsds feel a lot better at this lower point scale. Where an isd might be excessive, you can tool up a vsd to be just as deadly.

2 minutes ago, Norsehound said:

We'll, it was released at 300, and nowhere in the rulebook does it say 400 does it? Otherwise why wasn't that in the core set?

It also explains why some things aren't working at 400 points that used to work before. Why do vsds go crunch now, and often, when they were harder to kill in wave 1? I figured more points means more ships/fighters/upgrades to increase offensive power without average increases to ship defense.

Vsds feel a lot better at this lower point scale. Where an isd might be excessive, you can tool up a vsd to be just as deadly.

Not in the Rulebook, but they knew large ships were coming. Because they were... hence the question of design vs stopgap.

and the answer is “lack of options” in the VSD question.

No recourse for defense vs a common attack setup (XI7s) is really felt when the VSD is defending itself. I don't think anyone can defend flying multiple VSDs in serious competitive lists... when you see one of them, it always has Tua on it, for ECMs to keep using the brace.

You can still fit 120 points in a 300 point list. The difference is how cramped things are going to feel. The absence of 100 points means you can't quite load an ISD to the gills with a lot of other things and escorts with it. 100 points is a lot of fighters, upgrades, or secondary ships. And since you can't auto-include the kitchen sink in your offensive options, the VSD isn't going to feel so overwhelmed... and your ISDs aren't loaded up for auto-kills or handling any kind of situation.

The reason I think heavies dominate at 200 points is because at that threshold the smaller ships are missing out on the things they need for defense too. The bigger batteries of a heavy are just overwhelming, and that's what people take. But if two un-upgraded mediums can defeat an un-upgraded heavy, I'd call that a win.

What are placement restrictions for obstacles in Taskforce? That is, how far from the edges do they go? And are the restrictions changed for Dangerous Territory?

Thanks. I'm sure this is explained somewhere obvious, but I've not found it and this keeps bugging me during TF games - which proves to be a great way to get a good game in when I can't afford the time for the full game.

Duplicate

1 hour ago, ShoutingMan said:

What are placement restrictions for obstacles in Taskforce? That is, how far from the edges do they go? And are the restrictions changed for Dangerous Territory?

Thanks. I'm sure this is explained somewhere obvious, but I've not found it and this keeps bugging me during TF games - which proves to be a great way to get a good game in when I can't afford the time for the full game.

Wish I could respond better but off my head I just can’t remember well.

As far as I’m aware the only changes to set up are that the no deploy zone is dist1-3/close-med range. (I know these are 2 mm different I just can’t remember which). Therefore obstacle placement is only changed by the placing of only 4 total.

The standard armada rules should apply. I believe it has to be not closer than dist1-3 from any edge right? I will need someone to confirm that.

As far as I’m aware dangerous territory and has no changes to the scenario either. It’s rebalanced to task force by removing two obstacles by nature. Follow the original armada rules and then remove two obstacles then follow the dangerous territory instructions.

Glad and to hear you’ve been playing with this format more!

9 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Wish I could respond better but off my head I just can’t remember well.

 As far as I’m aware the only changes to set up are that the no deploy zone is dist1  -3/close  -med  range. (I know these are 2 mm different I just can’t remember which). Therefore obstacle placement is only changed by the placing of only 4 total.

 The standard armada rules should apply. I believe it has to be not closer than dist1-3 from any edge right? I will need someone to confirm that.

As far as I’m aware dangerous territory and has no changes to the scenario either. It’s rebalanced to task force by removing two obstacles by nature. Follow the original armada rules and then remove two obstacles then follow the dangerous territory instructions.

Glad and to hear you’ve been playing with this format more!

Ok. Part of my confusion is the "Learn to Play" 180 point 3'x3' game doesn't use obstacles. I've been trying to find its obstacle placement rules to use in TF...which won't work.

Following standard rules for obstacles in the 400 pt 6'x3' game:

Quote

Obstacles must be placed within the setup area, beyond distance 3 of the edges of the play area, and beyond distance 1 of each other.

Dangerous Territory changes obstacle placement slightly:

Quote

Setup: Obstacles must be placed in the setup area beyond distance 5 of both players' edges.

http://starwars-armada.wikia.com/wiki/Dangerous_Territory

So TF would follow this too, with obstacles distance 3 of sides and distance 5 of players' edges (and distance 1 of each other).

Another TF game today. I really love this as an option to get in a game in 2 hours or less (definitely less when I'm tabled in round 4) on a busy weekend.

I flew a Motti Cymoon + 1 fleet, with Devastator and SA. @racknut flew MC75 Rieekann + Hammerhead. I won the bid. As I had SA and he didn't, I took first player allowing for first or second mover. I picked Solar Corona, as my fleet wasn't meant to depend on accuracies in particular. Overall, I like my fleet. But I made a strategic error in the first round in my navigation. I angled at the MC75 when I should have flown straight, and set up only for front arc and lost the double-arc chance. That let the MC75 ram me straight on with its double arc. A Motti Cymoon is tough, but ultimately it can't slug it out with only a single arc. My opponent took smart advantage of my nav error and won the game.

I like this little fleet and might play it again. Navigated better it could have won. Though I need to think further on the tabling rules, and whether I want to trade points into a non-flotilla. I've played a bit both ways in TF and there's pros and cons. But now that we're playing more intentionally with the tabling rule in mind, it might skew me back to having a Raider or Arquiten instead of the Goz.

Name: Taskforce - Motti Cymoon + 1B
Faction: Imperial
Commander: Admiral Motti

ISD Cymoon 1 Refit (112)
• Admiral Motti (24)
• Strategic Adviser (4)
• Entrapment Formation! (5)
• Boarding Troopers (3)
• XX-9 Turbolasers (5)
• Enhanced Armament (10)
• Avenger (5)
= 168 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Comms Net (2)
• Suppressor (4)
= 29 Points

Squadrons:
= 0 Points

Total Points: 197

On 10/28/2018 at 12:54 PM, ShoutingMan said:

Another TF game today. I really love this as an option to get in a game in 2 hours or less (definitely less when I'm tabled in round 4) on a busy weekend.

I flew a Motti Cymoon + 1 fleet, with Devastator and SA. @racknut flew MC75 Rieekann + Hammerhead. I won the bid. As I had SA and he didn't, I took first player allowing for first or second mover. I picked Solar Corona, as my fleet wasn't meant to depend on accuracies in particular. Overall, I like my fleet. But I made a strategic error in the first round in my navigation. I angled at the MC75 when I should have flown straight, and set up only for front arc and lost the double-arc chance. That let the MC75 ram me straight on with its double arc. A Motti Cymoon is tough, but ultimately it can't slug it out with only a single arc. My opponent took smart advantage of my nav error and won the game.

I like this little fleet and might play it again. Navigated better it could have won. Though I need to think further on the tabling rules, and whether I want to trade points into a non-flotilla. I've played a bit both ways in TF and there's pros and cons. But now that we're playing more intentionally with the tabling rule in mind, it might skew me back to having a Raider or Arquiten instead of the Goz.

Name: Taskforce - Motti Cymoon + 1B
Faction: Imperial
Commander: Admiral Motti

ISD Cymoon 1 Refit (112)
• Admiral Motti (24)
• Strategic Adviser (4)
• Entrapment Formation! (5)
• Boarding Troopers (3)
• XX-9 Turbolasers (5)
• Enhanced Armament (10)
• Avenger (5)
= 168 Points

Gozanti Cruisers (23)
• Comms Net (2)
• Suppressor (4)
= 29 Points

Squadrons:
= 0 Points

Total Points: 197

Very cool!
Love that punchy ISD

Have you had any issues with Large base ships being far too determine-y for the format? I was pondering a half hull = half points rule for Large base scoring. Though, I don't know if its needed. (I have a guess it is.)

5 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Very cool!
Love that punchy ISD

Have you had any issues with Large base ships being far too determine-y for the format? I was pondering a half hull = half points rule for Large base scoring. Though, I don't know if its needed. (I have a guess it is.)

I don't think so. I think overall our games have been pretty well matched. The big change this game was my change from my usual MC75+GR75 to trying MC75+HH. It allowed me to table @ShoutingMan by only killing his ISD.

Faction: Rebel
Commander: General Rieekan

Assault: Opening Salvo
Defense: Planetary Ion Cannon
Navigation: Solar Corona

MC75 Ordnance Cruiser (100)
• General Rieekan (30)
• Ordnance Experts (4)
• Phylon Q7 Tractor Beams (6)
• External Racks (3)
• Assault Concussion Missiles (7)
= 150 Points

Hammerhead Torpedo Corvette (36)
• Ordnance Experts (4)
• Disposable Capacitors (3)
• Assault Concussion Missiles (7)
= 50 Points

Squadrons:
= 0 Points

Total Points: 200

16 hours ago, Blail Blerg said:

Very cool!
Love that punchy ISD

Have you had any issues with Large base ships being far too determine-y for the format? I was pondering a half hull = half points rule for Large base scoring. Though, I don't know if its needed. (I have a guess it is.)

I don’t think it’s necessary to change the scoring. If anything, reducing points for large hull would further push the game towards big ships only.

I think we experience the state of Armada writ small. Because the game is currently rebalanced for large ships, our games are skewing to a big ship fleet.

This is further enhanced by the relative simplicity of flying a hard-hitting big ship over the nuance and planning needed to successfully navigate small ships against big ships.

I’ve played over half of our TF games with small and medium ship fleets, trying particularly to make Sloane Quasar fleets work. They’re viable, bidding and taking second player and winning off objective points. But it’s hard.

22 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

I don’t think it’s necessary to change the scoring. If anything, reducing points for large hull would further push the game towards big ships only.

I think we experience the state of Armada writ small. Because the game is currently rebalanced for large ships, our games are skewing to a big ship fleet.

This is further enhanced by the relative simplicity of flying a hard-hitting big ship over the nuance and planning needed to successfully navigate small ships against big ships.

I’ve played over half of our TF games with small and medium ship fleets, trying particularly to make Sloane Quasar fleets work. They’re viable, bidding and taking second player and winning off objective points. But it’s hard.

What I mean was that if you take a large ship down to more than half it’s hull you score half it’s points at end of game. It’s a direct nerf to scoring for large ships. This is based off impressions that in certain cases it seemed very hard to kill a large ship.

I agree the current meta also skews towards large ships being strong. But in task force that can make games have a singular focus: can you kill the big ship or lose?

Asking for more opinions and test data

One test case: yavaris bombers vs ISD and fitesprays.

I’ll try to keep that in mind next time we play, and compare the results with normal vs half-hull scoring.

9 hours ago, ShoutingMan said:

I’ll try to keep that in mind next time we play, and compare the results with normal vs half-hull scoring.

We played the we played the CC in April starting at 200pts instead of 400, and both imperial players took ISDs and we didn’t have any balance issues. As mentioned earlier, the ISD’s has to be bare bones and one of them was tabled even against just 200pts of Rebels.

Our CC next year we are planning to start with 200pts again.

On 11/2/2018 at 6:00 AM, Bakura83 said:

We played the we played the CC in April starting at 200pts instead of 400, and both imperial players took ISDs and we didn’t have any balance issues. As mentioned earlier, the ISD’s has to be bare bones and one of them was tabled even against just 200pts of Rebels.

Our CC next year we are planning to start with 200pts again.

When doing this in the CC what total do you build up to?

2 hours ago, Captain Ordo N-11 said:

When doing this in the CC what total do you build up to?

iirc we every ended on 450-550*. No one felt left behind. The other thing is, if you start at 400 and go from there, choosing to scrap your fleet to start fresh can leave you 100+ points behind your opponent. When we started at 200 we had a rule that you started a new fleet at the average fleet total or 400pts, which ever was less. That meant that the newer players could afford to completely drool their entire fleet all the way up to the final 3rd of the campaign and still have a fighting chance.

Just FYI - we played over 3 days, I’ve never done a campaign as a once a week/fortnight/month thing.

*We didn’t have a limit on how fleets grew. If you got the points, you could spend them.

Edit:

We are considering using Siege of the Arkanis Sector for our next one, or perhaps borrowing some elements like no scarring, just either jump out or your ship is gone forever. (You can use the model again, but any unique upgrades like a title it had are toast).

We are also toying with the idea of no unique squadrons alllowed until you have gotten a generic squadron to actually kill something AND survive a battle.

Finally, we are big fans of Holdfast Pacific/Atlantic, a WW2 naval game that has a really cool turn reinforcement mechanic where you get specific ships each turn (as they were irl built as the war progressed), and you can repair damaged ships but once they are gone they are gone, so you really have to choose how and when to send in your best ships.

I would love to find a way to implement this in Armada, for example I own 3 ISDs total, my friend owns two more, limit the Imperials to only 5 IsD’s Ever between 3 people, stagger when they become available, and suddenly there is a whole new resource management/grand admiral strategy level to your Corellian Campaign.